From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 53883 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2016 14:59:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 53870 invoked by uid 89); 28 Apr 2016 14:59:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1168, watch X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 14:59:11 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A47F7AE8E; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 14:59:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-113-93.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.93]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u3SEx9tJ011502; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 10:59:10 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Turn some compile-time tests into run-time tests To: Patrick Palka References: <1457653131-32296-1-git-send-email-patrick@parcs.ath.cx> <75b51453-cac0-0d8f-2bfa-9a0cabca6e9b@redhat.com> Cc: GCC Patches From: Jeff Law Message-ID: <188b3046-c236-02c4-0b5a-ce25388aafc2@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 14:59:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-04/txt/msg01845.txt.bz2 On 04/28/2016 08:03 AM, Patrick Palka wrote: >> >> The rest seem OK to me. Note that I'm not convinced all these tests were >> designed to be execution tests, even though they use __builtin_abort and >> friends. Though it's a good marker of something that can/should be looked >> at. > > True.. What made me look into this in the first place is that I > caught myself making a similar mistake, i.e. marking an execution test > case as dg-do compile instead of dg-do run out of habit. It's an easy mistake to make and, it's pretty low in terms of real world impact :-) But I > suppose it's worth looking at the context of each of these tests to > see if they were not actually intended to be execution tests. I'll > double check this and report back; in the meantime I also found some > more tests that ought to be looked at. I think for the set you already identified go ahead and make the approved changes. We don't really lose anything by doing so. Going forward we just have to continue to watch for this kind of thing slipping through the cracks and updating tests as mistakes are identified. jeff